1 1 international journal of shıcı studies Volume 3, No. 2, 2005 Editorial 7 Articles and Essays An Analytical Summary of the Second and Third Qabas of Mır Dam¯ ad’s¯ Kit¯abuãl-Qabas¯at 11 Keven Brown The Origins of the Crown Prince System in Muslim History 75 Abbas Ahmadvand Alevis, Nusayris and Bektashis: A Bibliography 103 Ramin Khanbagi Notes and Reviews The Crisis of Muslim History: Religion and Politics in Early Islam, by Mahmoud M. Ayoub 221 Idris Samawi Hamid 1 1 221 221 notes and reviews Book Review The Crisis of Muslim History: Religion and Politics in Early Islam, 2003. By Mahmoud M. Ayoub. Oneworld Publications, Oxford. 179 pp., plus Preface and other front matter. Contains two appendices, bibliography, and index. No period of Muslim history is as controversial as the immediate years following the passing of the Prophet of Islam.¯ Although there is no shortage of traditional Muslim scholarship on the issue, much-to-most of it polemical, Western scholarship on the matter, objective or not, has been sorely lacking, at least until the publication of Wilferd Madelung’s The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate in 1997. Covering the period of the first four political leaders of the Muslim community after the Prophet, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, in his The Crisis of Muslim History: Religion and Politics in Early Islam, gives a fresh perspective on the turbulent yet formative years of early, post-Prophetic, Muslim history. Like Madelung, Ayoub claims that his approach is to largely let the Muslim sources speak for themselves. Ayoub’s own analyses of the selected sources tend to be brief and to the point. On the other hand Ayoub uses a quite limited subset of sources and does not explicity justify his selection of this subset, which appears to be the usual subset of mainly Sunnı sources relied upon or cited by the orientalists. International Journal of Shıcı Studies 3(2) 221–232 © 2005 by Global Scholarly Publications 221 221 222 222 222 idris samawi hamid Further, he mostly ignores Shıcı sources altogether, as well as many Sunnı sources. Yet a fair historical assessment requires a somber consideration and analysis of sources from all sides of the relevant issues, be they Sunnı, Shıcı, or other. This lack of inclusivity, without even a clear justification for the subset of sources cited, clouds some of the author’s claims as we shall see. The immediate picture that emerges from Ayoub’s analy- sis is that, whatever the polemical issues, the dynamic that largely drives events surrounding the political succession to the Prophet of Islam¯ is polarization about the person of c Imam¯ Alı ibn Abı T. alib¯ (A). One detects a real fear on the part of many of the elders of the community of the conse- quences of giving the leadership of the community to Imam¯ cAlı, despite at the least the grudging acknowledgement of his worthiness and deservedness. One interesting, indeed, astonishing, claim that Ayoub makes is that the famous tradition of Gad˙ ır Humm, despite its fame and authenticity, is not reported to˘ have been used by Imam¯ cAlı in his debates with the first two rulers of the community after the Prophet, with the implicit implication that the Imam¯ himself possibly did not consider it to be so important to his claim to rule. Even further, according to Ayoub, the tradition is only first “cited” by the early and very important Companion cAmmar¯ ibn Yasir¯ in what c c Ayoub terms an “alleged” debate with Amr ibn al- Aas¯. during the rule of Imam¯ cAlı (pp. 113–114). Yet Ayoub fails to mention the famous H. adıtu ã˜l-Rah. bah˜, ¯ attested to by no less a personage than the proto-Sunnı fig- ure Ah. mad ibn H. anbal (whose role in establishing the Sunnı consensus in theology and history can hardly be exagger- ated). In this event, ocurring before cAmmar’s¯ debate with c c ibn al- Aas¯., Imam¯ Alı administered an oath to the people 222 222 223 223 review: the crisis of muslim history 223 of Kufah¯ and insisted that only those who had heard the Prophet speak at Gadir˙ should stand up; 30–32 surviving companions of the Prophet did so. Hence it appears that the Imam¯ himself did accord this event much importance as the basis for his rule and the allegiance paid to him (ver- sions of this tradition also mention that a small number of companions pretended to forget the event, and came under the curse of the Imam¯ as a result). There are other, earlier, reported incidents where the event of Gad˙ ır has been cited by Imam¯ cAlı and others in conjunction with his claim to the leadership of the community, prior to the terminus claimed by Ayoub. The Imam¯ himself attests to it, for example, • in the mosque of the Prophet soon after his passing (Book c of Sulaym ibn Qays; also Hut.ba˜tu ãl-Wasılah˜ of Imam¯ Alı, recorded by the writer Jabir¯˘ ibn Yazıd al-Jucfı (d. 128 or 132) in the late Umayyad period); • at the š¯ur¯a after the death of cUmar (various); • during the days of cUtman¯ (Sulaym;Jabir¯ also wrote ¯ a treatise containing the details of this encounter called Kit¯abuH. adıti ã˜l-Š¯ur¯a); ¯ • on the day of a˜l-Rah. bah˜ upon his arrival in Kufa (mentioned earlier and attested by numerous sources); • during the Battle of the Camel (various). This is not an exhaustive list. The event of a˜l-Rah. bah,˜ especially given its virtual consecutive transmission in Sunnı sources, is one of supreme importance. Even if one takes the approach that, e.g., 223 223 224 224 224 idris samawi hamid Sulaym is a Shıcı source and therefore biased,1 the emphasis c that Imam¯ Alı placed on Gad˙ ır at a˜l-Rah. bah,˜ the oath that he administered, and the public nature of this undeniable event, adds weight to the reports, ignored by Ayoub, that the Imam¯ had referred to it on various earlier occasions. Ayoub also leaves out other examples, such as the speech of Fat¯.imah˜ (A) after the passing of the Prophet where she reminds the people about Gad˙ ır. Given the theme of Ayoub’s work, the relation of religion and politcs during this turbulent period, one wishes that more attention were paid to the role of this tradition. In addition to its explicit mention, the implicit role played by the Tradition of Gad˙ ır in the circumstances surrounding the passing of the Prophet, as well as the events following his passing, cannot be left out of the analysis. Both Madelung and Ayoub fall short on this score. In his analysis Ayoub appears to embrace the view that Imam¯ cAlı was idealistic and morally irreproachable, but that he “lacked the Prophet’s far-sighted political flexibility” (p. 91), which resulted in the Imam’s¯ downfall. 1 Note: Modarressi (2003, pp.82–86) suggests that Sulaym ibn Qays never existed, though he agrees that the core book itself dates to Umayyad times. Whether or not ‘Sulaym’ was, in fact, a pseudonym has little-to-no bearing per se on the authenticity of the accounts given therein, especially as many of these are confirmed in other sources. In any case, Ayoub continually and consistently relies upon the Ta rc ıh of Ibn Qutaybah,˜ a figure who died 200 years later than the author of˘Sulaym. Ayoub agrees that this book was in all likelihood written yet later in the tenth century and falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah˜ (p. 8). In the case of Ibn Qutaybah˜ Ayoub, implicitly and correctly, distinguishes the issue of authorship from the issue of authenticity of content. Given his apparent methodology one wonders why Ayoub left out the aforementioned and other reports. Either he was not aware of them or he has some criteria for selection which he has not shared with his reader. 224 224 225 225 review: the crisis of muslim history 225 Of course, such a view is not unique to Ayoub; it is a standard position taken by many orientalists and modernist Muslim scholars alike. It is, howevever, a matter which deserves further analysis. Again, Ayoub keeps his analyses brief and to the point, but they leave the reader longing for more. For example: Can one truly find a decision of the Imam¯ where it is clear and demonstrable that the Prophet himself would have advised a more “politically flexible” course of action?2 An important point that Ayoub makes is the insight that the Imam¯ was plagued by the “radical individualism” (p. 111) that characterized Arab tribal politics. The tendency of the Arabs towards an anarchic political system, plus the pious simple-mindedness of so many of his followers, contrasted with the Byzantine discipline of Mucawiya¯ h’s˜ Syrian army. I would add that it was this same spirit that played a major, perhaps decisive, role in causing the elders of the community to reject the arrangments the Prophet had made regarding his succession in the first place. Indeed, c one may argue that the idol of as.abiyyah˜ (prejudice) and h. amiyyah˜ (zealotry) of the Arabs was perhaps the one idol the Prophet could not break in his lifetime. Imam¯ cAlı c himself is reported to have said that as.abiyyah˜ is the 2 Sayyid Qutb, a modern Sunnı scholar, while not shy of being critical of cUtman¯ and even cUmar on occasion, answers this question in the ¯ negative. He rejects the criticism of Imam¯ cAlı as “politically inflexible” and provides an analysis to show that any compromise on the Imam’s¯ part would have been folly.